Iraq Pulls Clinton Into Risky Strategy Dilemma

President Must Balance Allies' Support With Decisive Action

November 07, 1997|By William Neikirk and David S. Cloud, Washington Bureau.

WASHINGTON — For the fourth time in his presidency, Bill Clinton is faced with an increasingly complex challenge: how to put a defiant but durable Saddam Hussein "back in his box," as one senior administration official put it.

Whether it's old-fashioned diplomacy, economic sanctions or raw military power, none of the options Clinton is weighing to force the Iraqi leader to stop blocking United Nations weapons inspectors is without its problems or its potentially harmful consequences.

A diplomatic or economic move that would avoid offending allies might prove to be too tame and enable Hussein to emerge stronger. An overly destructive military strike that would quickly force him to yield might arouse a storm of protest among allies and hurt U.S. foreign policy.

Such considerations weigh heavily upon an administration frustrated that Hussein once again is flexing his muscles and, in the view of some U.S. officials, may be trying to hide the fact that Iraq is creating new weapons of mass destruction.

Forcing Hussein to relent ultimately may involve the use of military power, an option that has become more complicated in the wake of previous strikes against Iraq for Hussein's misbehavior. He's still alive and just as mischievous. Another display of American power is something many officials would like to avoid--if they can.

Nonetheless, Defense Secretary William Cohen said Thursday that Iraq could face either military action or new sanctions. "I think sufficient warnings have been given," he said.

Thursday, Hussein for the fourth time barred U.S. members of an UN inspection team from looking for biological or chemical weapons.

Clinton told reporters that "it would be a mistake" if Hussein carried out a renewed threat to shoot down American U-2 spy planes flying over Iraq as part of the UN monitoring. The president said he's determined to ensure the inspections continue.

"He must not be allowed to resume producing weapons of mass destruction," Clinton said.

Late Thursday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned Iraq to cooperate with the arms inspectors or he would end his personal intervention in the dispute, Annan's spokesman said.

Administration officials pondering the next step ask themselves: Is military action the only option that will cause the Iraqis to capitulate? If the current UN-sponsored economic sanctions are hurting Hussein's regime, why not just maintain them until he bends and keep many allies happy in the process?

Such internal questioning has produced a list of diplomatic, economic and military options that depend on how officials anticipate Hussein will react if any are applied.

Anthony Cordesman, co-director for Mideast studies for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says: "Limited options do not send a powerful enough signal to Saddam Hussein. He not only respects force. It is almost the only thing he respects."

Yet to John Steinbruner, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, the U.S. would be playing into Hussein's hands if it resorts to military power, especially unilaterally.

A pinpoint military strike against a few targets would not hurt Hussein, Steinbruner said, just as previous cruise missile attacks on carefully selected targets did not. A more destructive operation would not only be risky militarily, he said, but also would brand the U.S. as a bully.

Cordesman said launching cruise missiles on targets that Hussein regards as dispensable is not necessarily effective. The U.S. could demand a halt to all Iraqi flights, knock out advanced aircraft or hit critical command-and-control targets scattered throughout the country, he said. It also could insist on no new development of oil production facilities, he said.

Still, though such options sound sensible to some, Cordesman conceded the U.S. should step back and consider that "we have to maintain what consensus we can" with U.S. allies.

If military action should become the primary option, the administration obviously would prefer it be launched under UN auspices, although Steinbruner said the UN would be uncomfortable sanctioning it.

Unilateral strikes may be the more practical, certainly speedier, way to use force, but could draw criticism from countries like France and Russia that have expanded commercial relations with Iraq. The administration knows the use of force will require careful building of support with allies.

"This is not a crisis between the U.S. and Iraq," an administration official said. "This is a crisis between the UN and Iraq."

Administration officials said they do not expect Hussein to relent by Monday, when a UN team dispatched to Iraq returns to the U.S.

Short of military action, there is strong sentiment for continuing the tough, UN-imposed economic sanctions on Iraq, even strengthening them if possible, although it's not immediately clear how that might be done.